Harper's Foreign Policy ?

[Concerned]

I posted this on another website http://www.canadiandemocraticmovement.ca/index.html in response to an American's posting who praised Harper and his support of American Right Wing Idealisms including US invasion of Iraq:

And what an intelligent defense of American hegemony we have here from our American friend. Of course Americans think that the war in Iraq freed 25 million people from an evil government, how else could they justify such atrocities against the Iraqi people? And what of the sanctions that they have imposed and are enforcing against this country now? How are those sanctions helping displaced and homeless Iraqi people whose standard of living has dropped to .... what ???

Through the years, the American government has gained control of the American media and has managed to stifle anyone who speaks out against American policy. True democracy allows for freedom of speech. Something that does not exist in the US of A, and something that we still manage to enjoy here in Canada at least to some extent. Will we if Harper gets into power?

We as Canadians have been able to piece together the motives of Bush and his administration in terms of its war crimes against Iraq. Oil that is, black gold. Neo-conservative Americans like our friend posting on this website seek justification of those war crimes to fuel his big business beliefs. They also support a Harper government as a way to further control our resources, just as it did through the NAFTA agreement carved out by the Mulroney government. And why not give away our power and resources in perpetuity? The Canadian public was not stupid enough to believe at the time that we were getting the fair end of the NAFTA agreement. The agreement while in being structured was extremely controversial. Looking back at it, do any Canadians out there think that we are getting the fair end of this agreement now?

Through the ages America has supported fascist governments (both militarily and economically) in favour of quick and easy implementation of US economic development that favours the elite rich of the target country and the American developers that rape the lands and the people of its natural resources. Take many of the countries of Latin America for example, where resources are rich and the general population is deathly poor, while American multi-nationals reap the profits.

America has a specific agenda for military and economic dominance. It has consistently supported corrupt governments including supporting Saddam Hussein with economic and military aid before he "disobeyed" American orders. It as only when Saddam decided not to go with the US wishes that he was portrayed to the American public as "evil". Millions of dollars of military aid had already been spent in Iraq in support of Hussein. Just as it had in Columbia, East Timor, and Turkey where the atrocities of war resulted in mass suffering of the general populations there.

Using self-defense as the motive to strike in Iraq, the American public was fed constant crap by its media. Including the accusations that Iraq held weapons of mass destruction and that the Iraq regime was connected with Osama Bin Laden in his attacks against the US. I have some very intelligent friends there that had the wool pulled over their eyes quite nicely by American media. But no evidence to support those accusations against Iraq was found before, during, or after the Iraq war.

In short, it is very clear to me why this American friend is posting on this website in support of Harper. The right wing here in Canada would be in favour with the agenda of the US administration for economic dominance, which inevitably includes control of Canadian resources. And with Harper in power, Bush will get it. At the expense of most ordinary Canadians and at the economic gain of a few elite Albertans, including Mr. Harper himself.

[sharkman]

No, he doesn't scare me.

[tml12]

No, he doesn't scare me.

Me neither.

[geoffrey]

I posted this on another website http://www.canadiandemocraticmovement.ca/index.html in response to an American's posting who praised Harper and his support of American Right Wing Idealisms including US invasion of Iraq:

You can hardly hold Harper responsible for what others said about him.

And what an intelligent defense of American hegemony we have here from our American friend. Of course Americans think that the war in Iraq freed 25 million people from an evil government, how else could they justify such atrocities against the Iraqi people? And what of the sanctions that they have imposed and are enforcing against this country now? How are those sanctions helping displaced and homeless Iraqi people whose standard of living has dropped to .... what ???

They dropped the sanctions (other than the weapons importation ban) once Saddam as removed. Iraqi people now have the choice to improve their living standards, before they were oppressed, tortured, raped... and exposed to numerous other human rights abuses. Your right, this is still occuring. However, now this is all illegal, where as before it was state sanctioned.

Through the years, the American government has gained control of the American media and has managed to stifle anyone who speaks out against American policy. True democracy allows for freedom of speech. Something that does not exist in the US of A, and something that we still manage to enjoy here in Canada at least to some extent. Will we if Harper gets into power?

The US has way more freedom of speech than Canada. Most legal and political experts would agree with me. In Canada your not allowed to speak against any minority group, not even in a constructive criticism sort of way, without risking a lengthy hearing and possible charges in front of the 'Human Rights Commission'.

Add into that our gag laws that prevent third-party advertising during elections. And publication bans constantly on government hearings until 'all the details come out'.

We ban certain radio stations and programming, we ban certain TV. How is that free speech?

Don't even go there.

We as Canadians have been able to piece together the motives of Bush and his administration in terms of its war crimes against Iraq. Oil that is, black gold. Neo-conservative Americans like our friend posting on this website seek justification of those war crimes to fuel his big business beliefs. They also support a Harper government as a way to further control our resources, just as it did through the NAFTA agreement carved out by the Mulroney government. And why not give away our power and resources in perpetuity? The Canadian public was not stupid enough to believe at the time that we were getting the fair end of the NAFTA agreement. The agreement while in being structured was extremely controversial. Looking back at it, do any Canadians out there think that we are getting the fair end of this agreement now?

Now we are back at NAFTA... the agreement that created our strong economy and job market as it is now.

We don't give away resources, we sell them. Canada is based on resource markets, and we are extremely profitable because of both our access to US markets and development of these resources within the country.

NAFTA benifets Canada way more than the US. 80% of our exports go south, the US exports much less to Canada. NAFTA is completely responsible for our auto sector.

Through the ages America has supported fascist governments (both militarily and economically) in favour of quick and easy implementation of US economic development that favours the elite rich of the target country and the American developers that rape the lands and the people of its natural resources. Take many of the countries of Latin America for example, where resources are rich and the general population is deathly poor, while American multi-nationals reap the profits.

America has never had a fascist government. Live in Nazi Germany and then tell me how bad it is down there. What a farce.

Latin American problems are because of corrupt governments there, not because of the US (I might give you credit in Panama). The area is poor because of lack of economic development. Where is this development magically going to come from?? The US and Canada perhaps? But nope, your against NAFTA so we should just let them starve.

America has a specific agenda for military and economic dominance. It has consistently supported corrupt governments including supporting Saddam Hussein with economic and military aid before he "disobeyed" American orders. It as only when Saddam decided not to go with the US wishes that he was portrayed to the American public as "evil". Millions of dollars of military aid had already been spent in Iraq in support of Hussein. Just as it had in Columbia, East Timor, and Turkey where the atrocities of war resulted in mass suffering of the general populations there.

Well he was always evil, it was a matter of supporting the lesser of two evils at the time. The Cold war era was all about buying favours to prevent the spread of communism. You can't look at the US support of Iraq or Afghanistan without looking at it in that context.

Halting the spread of communism and eventually defeating it was a great accomplishment, even if we had to rest on less than moral people at the time. Now the US is cleaning up the mess they made, that is their responsibility after all.

Using self-defense as the motive to strike in Iraq, the American public was fed constant crap by its media. Including the accusations that Iraq held weapons of mass destruction and that the Iraq regime was connected with Osama Bin Laden in his attacks against the US. I have some very intelligent friends there that had the wool pulled over their eyes quite nicely by American media. But no evidence to support those accusations against Iraq was found before, during, or after the Iraq war.

All intelligence from many nations pointed to it. They were wrong, get over it. That doesn't change the situation now. I didn't support the war at first, I didn't believe the crap. Now that the US is there though, its important for us to support them in order for Iraq to grow into a free and prosperous nation. This will be a light for democracy in the middle-east all together. The elections have gone well due to international support.

In short, it is very clear to me why this American friend is posting on this website in support of Harper. The right wing here in Canada would be in favour with the agenda of the US administration for economic dominance, which inevitably includes control of Canadian resources. And with Harper in power, Bush will get it. At the expense of most ordinary Canadians and at the economic gain of a few elite Albertans, including Mr. Harper himself.

The US already controls much of our resources through their companies, its been this way for many years. We also get rich off this control. Just because your government in whatever part of the country your from has been ineffective in promoting growth, don't take it out on Alberta. We are rich because we've earned it through many years of suffering.

Harper doesn't stand to gain economically from selling off Canadian resources (other than that all Canadians will benifet). Maybe you should do some research into his background. Without Alberta leading in economic growth, Canada would be very different right now, much more poor anyways.

[Wilber]

For a hundred years between the end of the Napoleonic Wars till WWI we had a period called Pax Britannica during which there were no major world conflicts. We had it because Britain could project it's power any where in the world that they wanted because its navy was all powerful and through it's alliances maintained a balance of power in continental Europe.

Since the end of WWII we have been in a period which should be called Pax Americana. We have had no major world conflicts because of America's ability to project its power throughout the world, together with its alliances with other democracies.

Neither one of those countries acted/acts like boy scouts during these periods of domination, it doesn't go with the job description. Often their governments did things that weren't popular with their own people, let alone those of other countries but in democracies those governments inevitably get changed. The simple fact is, the privileged place Canada has occupied in the world since its inception is largely due to the two of them looking out for their own interests. Whether we agree with all the US's actions or not, perhaps a little time should be spent honestly thinking about where we would really be with out them holding the position of power they do in the world.

A question for all the US bashers. If you could pick one other country to wield the military power the US has, who would it be?

"Through the years, the American government has gained control of the American media and has managed to stifle anyone who speaks out against American policy. True democracy allows for freedom of speech. Something that does not exist in the US of A, and something that we still manage to enjoy here in Canada at least to some extent. Will we if Harper gets into power?"

Have you ever spent time in the US during an election? Ever heard of Watergate? Iran Contra? etc etc. The press uncovered those, not politcians or the Auditor General. No hate laws in the US. You can badmouth who you please. Gerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Louis Farrakhan etc etc. Americans regularly check an incumbents voting record before they decide how to vote. No need in Canada, they all vote the party line.

No democracy in the US.

[Concerned]

“Just as the United States dropped all sort of bombs over the geography and on the people of Iraq, including the use of specialized nuclear weapons, such as "bunker busters" so they dropped a diplomatic bomb when they called on Iraq to convert immediately to democracy... the expectation was laden with both arrogance and ignorance…strange angles and deep ironies of (American) engagement in Iraq: the purpose and the waste, the discipline and the recklessness, the idealism and the opportunism, the nobility and the venality…

In the meantime, the threat of more war against terrorism and for democracy is looming in the Middle East. George W. Bush has consistently twisted his tongue in attempts to disengage from Iraq, but in clear terms he has now announced the strongest American menace against both Syria and Iran. The tactic is typical of all empires: when confronted with internal problems (in this case, the massive response of natural disasters and the growing opposition to the occupation of Iraq), the state wages another war to divert public attention…as a direct result of American financial ambitions and military actions in the Middle East, the word (democracy) is now generally understood to mean hypocrisy”

[crazymf]

Another 4 years of Martin scares me. It's about time we got a leader with some balls. I hope Harper doesn't weenie out after he gets in.

[Canuck E Stan]

Ford's announcement that it will cut more jobs in Canada,now that scares me.

[Concerned]

A question for all the US bashers. If you could pick one other country to wield the military power the US has, who would it be?

"Through the years, the American government has gained control of the American media and has managed to stifle anyone who speaks out against American policy. True democracy allows for freedom of speech. Something that does not exist in the US of A, and something that we still manage to enjoy here in Canada at least to some extent. Will we if Harper gets into power?"

Have you ever spent time in the US during an election? Ever heard of Watergate? Iran Contra? etc etc. The press uncovered those, not politcians or the Auditor General. No hate laws in the US. You can badmouth who you please. Gerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Louis Farrakhan etc etc. Americans regularly check an incumbents voting record before they decide how to vote. No need in Canada, they all vote the party line.

No democracy in the US.

"...Clearly, in order to fool all the people all the time and to set US up for that most profitable of all political rackets, namely war, control and domination of the press, as well as all elements of the American media, is absolutely vital in a nation that once was characterized as being so abundantly wealthy in individual freedom. Such a nation would quickly recognize tyranny and be readily critical of any and all threats to its freedoms. Just as the first Nazi regime initially launched itself by securing a vital propaganda tool, think of the smashing advantage and experience the current Nazi regime has over the first via the total power of the Zionist media....

...the Hitler regime was just a dry run for the real thing: the unending Nazi regime headed by members of the Bush and Clinton crime families. Grandpa Bush, Prescott, was Hitler's chief financier. He siphoned off the remaining Nazi Union Banking funds to launch the Bush family wealth. And yet more Nazi funding and assets were used and transferred to create the "American" CIA. Nazi intelligence agency operatives transferred under Grandpa Bush to the CIA launched many covert operations in South America with the intent of giving the Reich a new start in this hemisphere..."

[Wilber]

Now they are Nazi's. What are you on? One thing I have always noticed about the raving left. When they run out of cogent arguments they usually revert to using "Nazi" or "racist".

"A question for all the US bashers. If you could pick one other country to wield the military power the US has, who would it be?"

How about answering the question.

[Argus]

...the Hitler regime was just a dry run for the real thing: the unending Nazi regime headed by members of the Bush and Clinton crime families. Grandpa Bush, Prescott, was Hitler's chief financier. He siphoned off the remaining Nazi Union Banking funds to launch the Bush family wealth. And yet more Nazi funding and assets were used and transferred to create the "American" CIA. Nazi intelligence agency operatives transferred under Grandpa Bush to the CIA launched many covert operations in South America with the intent of giving the Reich a new start in this hemisphere..."

Please go away.

[Concerned]

Well he was always evil, it was a matter of supporting the lesser of two evils at the time. The Cold war era was all about buying favours to prevent the spread of communism. You can't look at the US support of Iraq or Afghanistan without looking at it in that context.

“…actual perpetrators come from the radical Islamic, here called, fundamentalist networks of which the bin Laden network is undoubtedly a significant part….They were brought together in the 1980’s actually by the CIA and its associates elsewhere: Pakistan, Britain, France, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, China was involved…. The idea was to try to harass the Russians, the common enemy. According to President Carter’s National Security Advisor, Zbigniew Brzezinski, the US got involved in mid 1979. Do you remember, just to put the dates right, that Russia invaded Afghanistan in December 1979. Ok. According to Brzezinski, the US support for the mojahedin fighting against the government began 6 months earlier. He is very proud of that. He says we drew the Russians into, in his words, an Afghan trap, by supporting the mojahedin, getting them to invade, getting them into the trap. Now then we could develop this terrific mercenary army. Not a small one, maybe 100,000 men or so bringing together the best killers they could find, who were radical Islamist fanatics from around North Africa, Saudi Arabia….anywhere they could find them. They were often called the Afghanis but many of them, like bin Laden, were not Afghans. They were brought by the CIA and its friends from elsewhere. …By January 1980 it is not even in doubt that the US was organizing the Afghanis and this massive military force to try to cause the Russians maximal trouble. It was a legitimate thing for the Afghans to fight the Russian invasion. But the US intervention was not helping the Afghans…”

[arif]

The Pax Americana is only a peace for Northern countries. The States are highly complicit in the context of many of the world's ongoing wars.

Look at what they did to Nicaragua and Congo, those are the two I'm most familiar with, but there are many more.

American foreign policy is not popular in the rest of the world, chomsky has cited this in hegemony or survival.

When we are critical of the American administration, we're labeled anti-american, but I've travelled a few times to New York and Washington and found the people awesome, the society great. It's really important to be able to dissent, to be critical, it's the foundation of civil society, and the great thing about our societies.

Just because we have great societies, does that mean it's ok to abuse and exploit other countries with the excuse that their governance is not as good, and sometimes it's done, like in Nicaragua in the 80's, where governance was improving, and in Congo where the States and Belgium had Lumumba, a democratically elected prime minister, assassinated, and then supported Mobutu - a leader so corrupt that his personal fortune exceeded the budget of his country, supported him because he was willing to allow covert operations by the CIA to neighbouring countries during the Cold War. The hypocrisy that the openly stated self-interest of American foreign policy is also meant to paternalisticaly help other countries is astounding. We haven't even begun with the Bretton Woods institutions.

There is definitely something wrong there, as we've seen in canada, power corrupts, and as we see in American foreign policy, absolute power corrupts absolutely.

I guess it's politically incorrect to be anti-american, political correctness being relative to your political perspective.

Arif

[Shady]

My answer is also no, he doesn't scare me at all. But I found this interesting.

the American government has gained control of the American media and has managed to stifle anyone who speaks out against American policy

How has the government managed to stifle anyone who speaks out against American policy? I see, and hear, and read all kinds of people every day that speak out against American policy. How the hell has Michael Moore been allowed to make his movies? Shouldn't he be locked up in some prison somewhere? Why does this forum attract such retards?

[Concerned]

Now they are Nazi's. What are you on? One thing I have always noticed about the raving left. When they run out of cogent arguments they usually revert to using "Nazi" or "racist".

"A question for all the US bashers. If you could pick one other country to wield the military power the US has, who would it be?"

How about answering the question.

Why does one country need to excercise global dominance and why do we need to pick one at all ? Why doesn't the US just stay at home and take care of their own problems? Why do we need their military forces to protect us? They are more often the perpetrators than the defenders, they just know how to hide it well, particularly given the average IQ of the American Population is approximately 90. Terrorist forces attack those that have created the problems within their countries. That is why they attacked the United States. If Canada can keep true to its foreign policy of contributing to world peace we shouldn't have to worry about being under attack by terrorists. Sticking to the ideals set forth by the United Nations should be our primary goal, something that the US has always had trouble with.

With respect to communism, Russia's main intention was to preserve it, not to expand it. It is the US that paints it own picture at home to justify its global positioning strategies.

And no, I'm not a leftist, particularly when it comes to economic principals. However I do believe in Human Rights and that means moderate, and that is the Canada that I want to see somebody "stand up for".

[tml12]

A question for all the US bashers. If you could pick one other country to wield the military power the US has, who would it be?

"Through the years, the American government has gained control of the American media and has managed to stifle anyone who speaks out against American policy. True democracy allows for freedom of speech. Something that does not exist in the US of A, and something that we still manage to enjoy here in Canada at least to some extent. Will we if Harper gets into power?"

Have you ever spent time in the US during an election? Ever heard of Watergate? Iran Contra? etc etc. The press uncovered those, not politcians or the Auditor General. No hate laws in the US. You can badmouth who you please. Gerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Louis Farrakhan etc etc. Americans regularly check an incumbents voting record before they decide how to vote. No need in Canada, they all vote the party line.

No democracy in the US.

"...Clearly, in order to fool all the people all the time and to set US up for that most profitable of all political rackets, namely war, control and domination of the press, as well as all elements of the American media, is absolutely vital in a nation that once was characterized as being so abundantly wealthy in individual freedom. Such a nation would quickly recognize tyranny and be readily critical of any and all threats to its freedoms. Just as the first Nazi regime initially launched itself by securing a vital propaganda tool, think of the smashing advantage and experience the current Nazi regime has over the first via the total power of the Zionist media....

...the Hitler regime was just a dry run for the real thing: the unending Nazi regime headed by members of the Bush and Clinton crime families. Grandpa Bush, Prescott, was Hitler's chief financier. He siphoned off the remaining Nazi Union Banking funds to launch the Bush family wealth. And yet more Nazi funding and assets were used and transferred to create the "American" CIA. Nazi intelligence agency operatives transferred under Grandpa Bush to the CIA launched many covert operations in South America with the intent of giving the Reich a new start in this hemisphere..."

This is ridiculous. You know, extremisits have no right to debate policy. Extreme left, extreme right...you are all the same.

I am not a bug Bush fan, but you know what? He has done some good things and he has helped the people in Iraq out a lot, regardless of what the extreme communist left might think.

I do not believe for one minute the ridiculous stuff you are passing off as "truth"...

[geoffrey]

And were on to comparisons of the Nazi's... great, so much for informed debate.

How many threads have their been comparing Harper to Bush to Hitler? How stupid can these people make themselves look?

And to Concerned... I strongly suggest you learn a little more about history before you say Russia was only preserving their boundaries and not expanding during the Cold War. Need I remind you of Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan?? Maybe you need to do some research.

[Concerned]

My answer is also no, he doesn't scare me at all. But I found this interesting.

the American government has gained control of the American media and has managed to stifle anyone who speaks out against American policy

How has the government managed to stifle anyone who speaks out against American policy? I see, and hear, and read all kinds of people every day that speak out against American policy. How the hell has Michael Moore been allowed to make his movies? Shouldn't he be locked up in some prison somewhere? Why does this forum attract such retards?

Thank god for Micheal Moore. How many Americans do you think actually watched those movies?

The media is controlled by sponsorship, which is controlled by big business and the extreme right. American right wing governments and particularly the Bush administration, controls the media through its play on consumerism, and succeeds because of the basic premise that the average american citizen is more concerned about his/her standard of living then anything else, and fairly ignorant to the ways of the world outside of his/her country's borders.

[tml12]

And were on to comparisons of the Nazi's... great, so much for informed debate.

How many threads have their been comparing Harper to Bush to Hitler? How stupid can these people make themselves look?

And to Concerned... I strongly suggest you learn a little more about history before you say Russia was only preserving their boundaries and not expanding during the Cold War. Need I remind you of Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan?? Maybe you need to do some research.

Oh that was about "manifest destiny" too...

I love the left...we would not be a democracy without you...

[geoffrey]

Oh that was about "manifest destiny" too...

I love the left...we would not be a democracy without you...

Some days I wish they followed through on that.

[tml12]

Yes,

Thank God for Michael Moore who lies and distorts facts to prove his extreme left-wing points.

You know Bowling For Columbine? One of the people in that film who was interviewed, one of the women in Toronto who said she never locked her doors, really does lock her doors...she is my colleague's mom.

Apprently Moore persuaded his cast to say that to prove his leftist point. :angry:

[BubberMiley]

So she lied. I don't lock my doors. Is it really necessary? Have you ever had anyone try to get in your house but stopped because the door was locked?

[tml12]

So she lied. I don't lock my doors. Is it really necessary? Have you ever had anyone try to get in your house but stopped because the door was locked?

Bubber,

Do you live in a major urban area?

I mean, seriously. There are reasons why we have locks on our doors...

[Concerned]

Now we are back at NAFTA... the agreement that created our strong economy and job market as it is now.

We don't give away resources, we sell them. Canada is based on resource markets, and we are extremely profitable because of both our access to US markets and development of these resources within the country.

NAFTA benifets Canada way more than the US. 80% of our exports go south, the US exports much less to Canada. NAFTA is completely responsible for our auto sector.

Fuel this debate: our energy security

GORDON LAXER

Friday, January 6, 2006

The spike in world oil prices after hurricane Katrina and the latest spike that saw prices surge above $60 (U.S.) a barrel this week have highlighted the need to plan for oil and natural gas shortages. The Americans are discussing how to ensure security of supply. So are many other countries. But not Canada.

We now have only 8.7 years of proven supply of natural gas. Conventional oil production is falling. Alberta's tar sands have plenty of oil, but it comes with horrific environmental damage. In an election campaign, Canada's political leaders seem oblivious to our energy security needs.

The United States has a bold national energy policy that stresses the idea that the greater its dependence on foreign energy, the greater the threat to its national security, and the urgency to move toward energy independence and self-sufficiency.

Oil Shockwave, a recent U.S. scenario exercise developed by (among others) the National Commission on Energy Policy, warns that oil disruptions could lead to a world shortfall of three million barrels, or 4 per cent of global supply, a day. The world price would rise 177 per cent to $161 (U.S.) a barrel. Gasoline would cost $5.74 (U.S.) a gallon ($1.78 Canadian a litre).

Mexico could weather such a shock. Its independent policy ensures public ownership and first access for domestic needs. Of the three NAFTA countries, only Canada has no plans for oil shortages, even though Canada imports 1.3 million barrels a day, about half of current use. The question is this: If there are energy shortages, in which of the three NAFTA countries are citizens most likely to freeze in the dark?

The Liberals are committed to the Kyoto accord, public transit and wind power, but they don't mention supply security. Neither do the Conservatives, who offer tax credits for transit users, funds for environmental cleanup, and review of Kyoto. The Bloc Québécois favours Kyoto, making polluters pay, supporting wind, and taxing oil profits. The NDP emphasizes job creation, renewables, protecting low-income families, and using oil to bargain with the United States on softwood lumber.

But even the best environmental policies will not help much as long as Canada is locked into exporting 70 per cent of its oil and 56 per cent of its natural gas to the United States. Under NAFTA's proportionality rules, we must continue exporting at least the same proportion of energy to the U.S., even if we face shortages. If Canada conserves energy, as it must, we will export more of our dwindling supplies, so that Americans can maintain their SUV fix. Canada -- Alberta in particular -- is the continent's environmental sacrifice zone.

To conserve energy, Canada must first regain control over energy supply and usage. Our NAFTA partners already have this: Mexico got an exemption from proportionality. Only Canada must export a majority of its energy in perpetuity. Canada should either demand a Mexican exemption or abandon NAFTA on the grounds that the U.S. ignores its rulings anyway. If one party ignores an agreement, other parties aren't bound by them. Giving six months notice to exit NAFTA would get Canada out of this energy encumbrance.

What might an energy security strategy for Canada look like? In contrast to the 1980 national energy program that Ottawa imposed, a security strategy must be a provincial-federal partnership. What could it include? First, the Dinning principle: R. J. Dinning headed a 1949 Alberta commission that recommended the province retain 50 years supply of natural gas before exporting to other provinces. The Dinning principle (only after Canadians are taken care of should energy be sent abroad) could be extended to oil and to all producing provinces and territories.

Second, slow the frenetic pace of Alberta tar sands development. More can be gained by reducing energy use than through more production. Using less will prolong energy supplies. Leaving the resource in the ground would increase its value when it's removed in 15 years.

Third, raise royalties to Norway levels to capture the full value of nature's non-renewable capital, for the owners -- the citizens of the producing provinces. Fourth, reverse the Sarnia-Montreal pipeline and bring western oil to Quebec again. An energy security strategy should follow public opinion and include Canadian ownership and Crown corporations.

Since 9/11, security has trumped trade in the United States. For Canada, this means our energy security comes ahead of NAFTA. What better time than during this election to debate how the parties plan to secure our energy future?

Gordon Laxer is director and co-founder of Parkland Institute,

a public policy research centre based at the University of Alberta.

[Shady]

Thank god for Micheal Moore. How many Americans do you think actually watched those movies?

Many American's have watched his movies, especially Fahrenheit 911, that film made a lot of money. The point is, that you're a propagandist liar when you say that the American government has managed to stifle anyone who speaks out against their policy. You're either a liar, or a retard, or both, but either way, please shut up. I'm sick of this kind of crap.